Question: Why did the colonists object to the new taxes in 1764 and again in 1765? What arguments did they use? Why did these conflicts over specific policies turn into a constitutional crisis?
The reason why the colonists rejected the new taxes in 1764 and 1765 is because the taxes denied them the rights as Americans. Specifically, the colonists argued that they had the right o be taxed by a duly elected representative from their own people.

The French and Indian war I America was very costly to Britain. In that the war was fought with the aim of protecting the colonists, it was thought necessary for the colonists to assume some part of the debt (Frazer 40). The emperor was also very keen to eradicate the smuggling that existed within the colonies.  So in 1764, the sugar act was introduced. It cut tax on molasses but increased taxes on wine, sugar, indigo, coffee and all foreign textiles. This was the first attempt by the parliament to raise revenue from the colonists.  Again, in 1965, the stamp act was introduced which introduced a tax on dice, legal documents, newspapers and playing cards (Frazer 42).

Traditionally, the English men had been duly taxed by representatives elected by them. However, the parliament introduced a tax with no representation.  Nobody represented them or their interests in parliament and the argued this was unconstitutional. Though the colonists had no much interest in being represented in parliament, they wanted to pay a tax imposed by people they elected themselves (Frazer 48). They felt like they were treated like foreigners in their own land. The arguments about these policies turned into constitutional crisis because the colonists had been privileges, rights, and immunities as Americans. When such promises were not fulfilled, the issue became constitutional.

Work cited

Frazer, Gregg. “The American Revolution: Not a Just War.” Journal of Military Ethics 14.1 (2015): 35-56.

Response to David Porter

Hi David, great line of thought there, The French and Indian war which was fought with the aim of protecting the colonists was very costly to Britain. It was thought necessary for the colonists to assume some part of the debt. The emperor was also very keen to eradicate the smuggling that existed within the colonies.  So in 1764, the sugar act was introduced and though it cut taxes on sugar, it increased taxes on other commodities. Again, in 1965, the stamp act was introduced which introduced a tax on dice, legal documents, newspapers and playing cards.  However, the major problem with the colonists was that they were being taxed by representatives that they had not elected themselves.

Response to Erick Emery

Hi Erick, great work there, the parliament was playing with the minds of the colonists by cutting taxes on commodity and increasing taxes on many other commodities. The decision to introduce these taxes came from the parliament where the colonists were not represented. Traditionally, the English men had been duly taxed by representatives elected by them. However, the parliament introduced a tax with no representation. Though the colonists had no much interest in being represented in parliament, they wanted to pay a tax imposed by representatives they elected themselves. The colonists viewed this to mean that they were lower class citizens and turned these policy issues into constitutional crisis.

 
Do you need an Original High Quality Academic Custom Essay?